The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement • Hacker News Board

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#181

Post by forapurpose » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 4:09 AM UTC

jpatokal wrote: post #168

forapurpose wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not getting much if anything in return Wow - security, both from war and crime, a legal system, safety in everything from water to food to airplanes, almost the entire transportation infrastructure, most of the education everyone receives including college and post-grad, research in everything from history to cancer to basic physics to fracking to computer science and integrated circuits (let's recall that the indu…

In most European countries, your taxes get you all that and universal health care, reliable unemployment benefits and free higher education.

That's because their health care is half the cost!

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#182

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:33 AM UTC

mattrices wrote: post #171

lotsofpulp wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidies add opacity to the market, so that the true cost of something is obscured from the consumer.

Reducing the cost of critical goods is sometimes necessary. Should milk cost 20+$/gallon? I understand the appeal ideologically, but in practice what you are suggesting would increase inequality.

[deleted]

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#183

Post by dcow » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:57 AM UTC

DubiousPusher wrote: post #42

dcow wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the sentiment but...we do have welfare programs. If a food source once available is becoming scarce, then obviously they will need to be revamped where appropriate.

I think it's easy to take that cold engineerlike approach when you won't be the one occupying this gap until it is filled

Cold? Factual, maybe. Are you saying you buy ugly food?

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#184

Post by calcifer » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 7:21 AM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #154

calcifer wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does this mean that we may have to restructure social programs as that food becomes sold rather than donated? Sure might. That's ok though. Said the man who never relied on donated food to survive. Still, I know I shouldn't be surprised to see this sort of comment on the mother of all capitalist congregations that is HN.

To repeat myself --- The author of this piece is basically just a competitor in the SAME market. Literally. You can sign up for 16 weeks of BeetBox for a mere 530 bucks (I'm being facetious if it's not entirely obvious... they're asking 35 dollars a box for self pickup - they're selling expensive freaking veggies.) So I fail to find the argument that this is hurting donations compelling (or even factual) and I don't…

You are making my point for me. I'm talking about people who rely on donated food to survive and you are talking about prices, markets and competition.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#185

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 1:26 PM UTC

mattrices wrote: post #171

lotsofpulp wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidies add opacity to the market, so that the true cost of something is obscured from the consumer.

Reducing the cost of critical goods is sometimes necessary. Should milk cost 20+$/gallon? I understand the appeal ideologically, but in practice what you are suggesting would increase inequality.

In practice it would inform the market where to divert resources. If you want to give poor people help, then you should provide them cash. This preserves the purpose of transparent prices, which is to inform other suppliers in the market to enter to drive the price down.

However, this is not done as it's more difficult to corrupt and profit off of this since it is transparent how much help the poor are getting. It's easier to muddy the waters and steal from taxpayers by creating a byzantine system of tax breaks and subsidies.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#186

Post by imperfect1 » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #45

VonGuard wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this whole piece is from someone with an axe to grind. I get it, Beet Box was more community focused and basically a non-profit masquerading as a startup. It's natural they'd get stomped by a real startup, but in this case, the competition is literally taking trash and making people eat it. It's great! What could be wrong with that? We waste like 40% of all food made in this country.

But it's not trash. It's food that was being used. I don't think most of Imperfect Produce's customers would subscribe if they knew this food was previously being eaten by people in need. Their entire marketing and product concept is based on a lie.

To be very clear, we do not sell food that would've otherwise gone to folks in need. We source from the 20 billion pounds of produce that goes to waste on farms–that's after food banks take what they can. As a country, we've barely scratched the surface of this huge problem of food waste. This Feeding American report is a great resource: bit.ly/2wobdjK

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#187

Post by imperfect1 » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 3:16 PM UTC

ryanackley wrote: post #97

horsawlarway wrote: post #24

I... see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Imperfect produce has managed to create a market for food that was previously not able to be sold. Good for them. Does this mean that we may have to restructure social programs as that food becomes sold rather than donated? Sure might. That's ok though. I'd also like to clearly point out that the author misquotes their source for the amount of food donated. The California…

The author's best arguments aren't articulated well. I will try and paraphrase. Essentially, Imperfect Produce is buying scraps from medium to larger farms and marketing it to people that would normally buy produce from small farmers. They sell you on the concept of buying vegetables and helping the environment and farmers at the same time. They do this by claiming that the food would go to waste if you didn't buy it…

We have never claimed to source from small farms. We source from medium and large scale farms, where most of the 20 billion lbs of food waste happens. Rather than targeting CSA shoppers or farmers market patrons, we target shoppers who are going to supermarkets and buying “perfect” produce at a premium. We are encouraging them to think more about where they get their fruits and vegetables by offering another option so they can save money and reduce waste. We think CSAs are a great option for those that want locally-sourced produce that’s grown at a small-scale and we entirely support that choice if the option is financially available to you.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#188

Post by imperfect1 » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 3:23 PM UTC

cowpig wrote: post #91

SatvikBeri wrote: post #21

Imperfect Produce's reply: https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/11500456...

Beyond the first paragraph which just states that their food would otherwise end up as trash, they don't actually reply to any of the claims in the parent article. The evidence they provide is broad macro-level statistics about how much food is wasted, but not about where the food they're selling comes from. The parent article claims specifically that they are getting their food from sources that would otherwise be g…

We source from medium and large scale farms where most of the 20 billion lbs of food waste happens. These farmers either let their ugly produce rot in the field, or sell it for pennies to animal feed. Happy to clear up any other misinformation that this article presents.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#189

Post by mattrices » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 1:47 AM UTC

xixi77 wrote: post #172

mattrices wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing the cost of critical goods is sometimes necessary. Should milk cost 20+$/gallon? I understand the appeal ideologically, but in practice what you are suggesting would increase inequality.

weird that you bring milk up as an example, because this is an industry where regulations tend to make sure milk prices stay high and production stays low; really there are not many examples of food subsidies/regulations that aim to reduce prices and increase supply, at least not in the developed world

Hm, I brought it up because its a staple item that everyone seems to need, but upon reflection that would make it a target for subsidy to reduce the inflation metrics.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#190

Post by DubiousPusher » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:19 AM UTC

dcow wrote: post #183

DubiousPusher wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's easy to take that cold engineerlike approach when you won't be the one occupying this gap until it is filled

Cold? Factual, maybe. Are you saying you buy ugly food?

No. I happen to agree that the best thing would be for the market to purchase these items and for food subsidies to adjust. But you say

> they [welfare programs] will need to be revamped where appropriate.

as if this will certainly happen and that it will happen quickly. But that is certainly not the case. And what do people do in the meantime? It doesn't seem tough when you've got $1,000, $500 even $100 in the bank. But losing a small benefit for even a couple years can be brutal if you're in poverty. The gears of the market are a powerful tool for making our society wealthier but they'll grind you up just the same if you're living on the margin as they begin to turn. Ask anyone who has been a resident of a Midwestern town for the past 50 years.